add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Comments

Comments

Comment reply on Forum Topic "i5-4690k vs i7-4790k"

  • 45 months ago
  • 1 point

i5 vs i7

Both have 4 cores and only 4 cores

Both have turbo boost

Both can overclock to the same frequency

Both will perform the exact same with games/programs that only use up to 4 cores

i7 has hyperthreading while the i5 doesnt

Hyperthreading is good for rendering, compressions, virtual machines and streaming. Other then that you wont notice a difference at all. So IMO 90% of PC users will never benefit an i7 over an i5 expcet saying they have an i7 in there machine.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Will ZEN destroy every skylake processor?"

  • 46 months ago
  • 1 point

I agree that Intel needs competition, but its also safe to say that the 6700k is priced the same as the 2600k when first released. Intel could increase the price even more but its been fairly nice for them to keep the price the same over the past 5 years even with a 30-40% increase in performance.

Hope AMD could give Intel a run for its money. Though I personally think CPU technology has leveled out. We probably will never see a CPU released that just destroys anything on the market anymore. Fingers crossed that its Sandy/Ivy Bridge single thread performance and 6/8 cores around $200-250. If this becomes true AMD has my money.

Sandy vs Skylake in "games" is such a small increase in performance that its almost pointless for anyone to upgrade from a 2500/2600k to skylake. So to have a true 6/8 core CPU thats less then $250 would be a huge win.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Asrock customer build question"

  • 46 months ago
  • 1 point

Yeah i have 3 Asrock boards that are 1155 socket. Still no issues on any of them and have been holding a 4.4 ghz overclock for all these years.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "New AMD CPU and APU launched"

  • 46 months ago
  • 1 point

I guess cool???? Who actually buys these CPU's for gaming though? I feel like they are better for Media Centers with the possibility to play some of your steam games.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Build for a friend URGENT"

  • 46 months ago
  • 1 point

Only way to play blo3 on steam and then stream it using obs on the same computer would be a minimum of a FX-8320. Though if you were going to play the game on a console aka xbox and then use the PC to stream it then your budget can be possible.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Build for a friend URGENT"

  • 46 months ago
  • 1 point

Is this going to be streaming BO3 from a console and what else does he plan to do with this PC?

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Build for a friend URGENT"

  • 46 months ago
  • 1 point

Well i assume this is with a console so actually it can be possible with the i3 he has in his build. The only high price is going to be the capture card windows (unless linux and the other way) and the i3.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "AMD vs INTEL"

  • 46 months ago
  • 1 point

yes

Comment reply on Forum Topic "AMD vs INTEL"

  • 46 months ago
  • 1 point

yeah 144hz is 144 fps

Comment reply on Forum Topic "AMD vs INTEL"

  • 46 months ago
  • 1 point

not 100% sure since i dont own either but i have a 3570k and a gtx 770 and i get over 250-300+ fps. You really dont need that much since your monitor cant process that much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2swEuQ7Dx94

Most people play csgo at a 4:3 resolution at 1024x768 on low settings. You really dont want to play csgo at high settings as it can hinder your vision or cause dips in fps. Plus you wont notice much of a difference between low and high in csgo as it wasnt really designed for cutting edge graphics.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "AMD vs INTEL"

  • 46 months ago
  • 2 points

IMO the r9-390 is huge overkill for csgo. Even with a GTX 750TI you'd max out your fps at 1080p. But if youre planning to get a 390 anyways then why not ya know?

For streaming the 8350 will perform better and have less in game lag. AutoCad isn't really as stressful as some people seem to think. I have over 15 years of experience with Civil 3d and have used this program from P4 all they way to 16 thread Xeon Citrix (VDI's) workstations and feel very little performance lag. Though if you were to compare AMD vs Intel I'd vote Intel for AutoCad just for the single thread performance, but you wont notice the difference.

My recommend would be:

Keep 8350 and get a H212 and overclock slightly

Buy a 144hz monitor (Asus vg248qe) if you dont have one already

Get a good brown switch mechanical keyboard

Steelseries Rival 300 or Zowie mouse

Get a huge mouse pad

GTX 960 / R9-380 (This if you are only to play csgo) or your R9-390 / GTX 970

Then enjoy

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Is it possible to change CPU's this far into the game? :O"

  • 46 months ago
  • 1 point

Thats the code name for the CPU aka i7 4770k / 4970k

Comment reply on Forum Topic "castor or rival 300"

  • 46 months ago
  • 1 point

I love the rival 300 and its a pretty big mouse. Good for bigger hands IMO and it get my A+ rating.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Is it possible to change CPU's this far into the game? :O"

  • 46 months ago
  • 1 point

your comment doesnt make sense.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Is it possible to change CPU's this far into the game? :O"

  • 46 months ago
  • 1 point

If you wanted to go haswell or haswell refresh all youd need is a new Motherboard and CPU

If you wanted to go skylake you'd need a new Motherboard, CPU and RAM (DDR4).

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Best OC software for gpu and cpu"

  • 46 months ago
  • 1 point

Its called the BIOS for the CPU and either msi afterburner or evga precision x for the GPU.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Stable Overclock on a i5 6600K with a hypermaster 212 EVO"

  • 46 months ago
  • 1 point

Not sure about a 6600k but I was able to hit 4.2-4.3 pretty easily. So I'd assume you shouldn't have a problem at all with the newer chips.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Intel or Stick with AMD?"

  • 46 months ago
  • 1 point

yeah it should do fine depending on the GPU you plan to buy. I'm more of an Intel fan but for $120 you really cant match that.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Intel or Stick with AMD?"

  • 46 months ago
  • 1 point

Inventor and revit will use more than 1 core. Naw you should be fine with a 8320e IMO.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Intel or Stick with AMD?"

  • 46 months ago
  • 1 point

What version of Autodesk are you using? Civil 3d and others are still single threaded applications.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "960 Price Drop when Pascal arrives"

  • 46 months ago
  • 1 point

GTX 700 Series from what "I remember" had these price drops:

GTX Titan/Black $0 price drop

GTX 780 TI $0 price drop

GTX 780 $150 price drop

GTX 770 $50 price drop

GTX 760 $0 price drop

GTX 750 TI $0 price drop

Comment reply on Forum Topic "960 Price Drop when Pascal arrives"

  • 46 months ago
  • 1 point

I agree on this^^. Looking back on previous models, NVIDIA only lowers prices on higher end cards, not lower. I wouldn't be surprised if they never get a price drop and just get fazed out aka GTX 750 TI.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "GTX 780, 980 or Pascal Equivalent?"

  • 46 months ago
  • 1 point

Yeah id pass on a GTX 770 for $180. A GTX 960 can be had for similar price and performs about the same as a GTX 770. If you can find a GTX 770 around $150 that wouldn't be a bad buy. But man missing out on the GTX 780 for $150 was a steal!!! Those cards are probably good for $225-250 if you can find that.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "I7 6700k or i5 6600k?"

  • 47 months ago
  • 1 point

I totally agree but i just feel like this question is being asked over and over again already knowing the answer. The i7 is better at streaming / editing but the i5 can still get it done. It depends on budget and if it will hinder you from buying a better GPU if you get the i7 over the i5.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "h100i GTX"

  • 47 months ago
  • 1 point

You want these if they are from corsair

https://pcpartpicker.com/part/corsair-case-fan-co9050020ww

you want the SP version as they are for static pressure and help move air though the radiator. The AF is more for just case fans.

These are the best but expensive and kind of ugly

https://pcpartpicker.com/part/noctua-case-fan-nff12pwm

Comment reply on Forum Topic "i5-6600K vs i7-6700K "autocad rendering efficiency" vs "money""

  • 47 months ago
  • 1 point

Yeah, gaming doesn't use hyper threading. So you wouldn't get much of a FPS gain using a i7 over an i5, but thats depends on if you are using the same GPU.

Like you said you just got into F 360. I think since its not a major aspect of your build then id vote i5. You wont be disappointed unless you really need those extra 30 seconds to render something.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "i5-6600K vs i7-6700K "autocad rendering efficiency" vs "money""

  • 47 months ago
  • 1 point

Is fusion 360 a mutli threaded application? I know a lot of the AutoCAD programs from autodesk are still single threaded and only certain commands/operations will use more then one thread. So IMO you probably wouldn't notice much of a difference between a i5 and a i7 if you aren't rending all the time, but that really depends on if that $150 help's you on other aspects of the build.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Possible Hyper 212 EVO Issue [URGENT]"

  • 47 months ago
  • 2 points

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n47WBQI31eE

watch its not hard to do. Also don't screw a screw all the way in at once.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "I7 6700k?"

  • 47 months ago
  • 1 point

I know i saw that 1tb ssd and was damn thats probably causing the price jump!!

Comment reply on Forum Topic "I7 6700k?"

  • 47 months ago
  • 2 points

The build only has a 6700(non k). I know ive read that you can overclock these non K CPUs but dont you need certain MB's or something?

Personally I think that's pretty expensive when you could just price out a build on this site cheaper or get something like this.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/TbhGrH

Comment reply on Forum Topic "gtx 770 dual sli vs r9 390?"

  • 47 months ago
  • 1 point

not really worth upgrading IMO. A single GTX 770 would be enough for most games maxed out.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "gtx 770 dual sli vs r9 390?"

  • 47 months ago
  • 1 point

Couldn't really find anything on a GTX 770 SLI vs R9-390, but I found a GTX 760 SLI vs R9-290. From the video the performance was pretty much the same. So I'd assume a GTX 770 SLI vs R9-390 would be about the same. Personally i'd wait it out a little longer before upgrading a GTX 770 SLI setup. Only option that I'd go for if i were to upgrade, would be a gtx 980TI or r9-fury x. Though you could probably sell each GTX 770 for around $150-200 and get a R9-390 from your selling's. That would be a good idea IMO since I'm not a huge fan of dual gpu setups.

What resolution are you gaming on?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwRiIXCnrXg

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Air vs Water cooler"

  • 47 months ago
  • 1 point

I wouldn't look at a AIO water cooler unless you are getting a h80 at least. The H7 should perform similar if not better then the cooler master h212 which is more then enough to get you a 4.2-4.4 overclock.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "290x vs 390"

  • 47 months ago
  • 2 points

If I'm not wrong isn't a 2/390X just an overclocked 2/390 anyways? They are all still the same card but with a slightly higher clock speed, right?

Comment reply on Forum Topic "gtx 980 0r r9 390x , best for future proof?"

  • 48 months ago
  • 1 point

The only reason why I mentioned the 980TI is because of NVIDIA basically priced out the GTX 980. In the US the price of a 970 is around $300-340 and the GTX 980 is around $500-550. Thats basically a difference of $200 for a extra 5-10 fps in games. Though if you were to save up for a GTX 980TI $600-650 you'd get a big jump up in FPS. that's a give or take of an extra $150 from a GTX 980. Worth the price if you want/need the best.

So "IMO" I just feel like the GTX 980 should be priced around $380-400 for it to become a viable option on the NVIDIA end.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "gtx 980 0r r9 390x , best for future proof?"

  • 48 months ago
  • 1 point

I agree with this ^^

Comment reply on Forum Topic "gtx 980 0r r9 390x , best for future proof?"

  • 48 months ago
  • 1 point

Personally I wouldn't look at either of those 2 cards as they arent worth the price per performance. The GTX 970 runs about 10% worst then the 980 while the 980TI just destroys both of them. The R9-390x is just a slightly overclocked 390 for $100 more. So either look at a 970, 980TI or 390.

For the future poof I'd say any of these cards would last a pretty long time at 1080p but for 4k not so much. What resolution are you planning to be playing on and what games? Are you mostly playing AAA titles or valve games aka CSGO?

Comment reply on Forum Topic "R9 390 Crossfire?"

  • 48 months ago
  • 1 point

Yeah i was just going to say isn't the 390X just an overclocked 390? I guess I dont understand why AMD has so many cards that are so close to performance of each other. It's so confusing even when you know about products. Why do this AMD???!!!! R9- Fury, R9-Fury X, R9-Nano all within $150 of each other and all within 10% performance of each other.

I know NVIDIA does the same with the Titan x and GTX 980 Ti but man its annoying.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Gigabyte GTX 770 OC WF3x 4gb"

  • 48 months ago
  • 2 points

I own the same card but with only 2gb's and i dont really see a point to upgrade anytime soon unless pascel is amazing. You should be able to run most games at ultra settings and others that are really demanding around medium/high.

Yes the GTX 770 is slightly better then a GTX 960 but if you are buying this card new for anything more then $170 id look else where. You are getting ripped off.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "OC my i5 4690k, or upgrade to a 4790k to handle the load during streaming?"

  • 48 months ago
  • 1 point

what games are you trying to stream? Anyways yes its because of OBS and gaming. If the game is well optimized its going to use all 4 cores while obs will do the same. Thats not bad at all unless you are experiencing input lag of some sort and will probably have to lower settings a bit. Yes a i7 would probably make a more smother experience for the streamer but an i5 can stream as well. Ususally the i7 comes in handy when you are running a game, obs, teamspeak, spotify, and a a bunch of tabs of chrome.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "A few questions on whether my cpu of choice will affect me streaming"

  • 48 months ago
  • 1 point

The GPU is mostly for your experience and no so much for streaming quality. While streaming you want more cores/threads vs lower cores better gpu. OBS uses your CPU to compress the game and then stream it out. So eccentrically you aren't using much of your GPU at all for streaming other then playing the game. Remember when you are streaming you might have a few tabs open, OBS, Game, Skype, Teamspeak, Spotify and others which all uses up CPU usage. That is why most ppl recommend a i7 over a i5. That's not to say you cant stream with a i5 because you can but depending on game you might experience lag.

IMO I5 for starting out and streaming once in a while but not full time. I7 if you really plan to go head on with streaming or actually do something else with your computer other then gaming. Secondly i'd save on a gtx 980 and just get a 970 because most likely you will be gaming at 1080p and compressing it down to 720p for the stream. Plus the 980 isn't really that much better then the 970 for the price, though a 980TI is worth it.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "NVIDIA GPU Pricing"

  • 48 months ago
  • 1 point

Totally agree with you on that but hey you will love the price when you are trying to sell that older card :)

Comment reply on Forum Topic "NVIDIA GPU Pricing"

  • 48 months ago
  • 1 point

Well you have to account for lower end cards then. If a used GTX 770 was around $100 and a new GTX 750 TI is around $100 why on earth would anyone buy a 750TI? They are priced by performance not by used or new. These are GPU's not cars. You will most likely upgrade or throw away a GPU before it dies.

FYI I still use an ATI 4850 on a media pc and see no reason to upgrade. That’s going on 8 years and AMD has stopped making drivers for it since 2013. Yeah if I wanted to game I’d have to upgrade but I only use it for video and I don’t see a point to buy a NVIDIA GT 740 or AMD you name it for $50-80.

I get your point, but we are only talking about a 2.5 year old card that still is a top GPU. Not much beats it other than a Nvidia 780, 780TI, Titan, Titan black, 970, 980, 980TI andTitan X. So I guess it just comes down to if you want new or used and I’m sure plenty would prefer NEW but if you can save $55 (GTX 770 $175 GTX 960 $230) then IMO the GTX 770 is a better buy but you would have to shop and hope to not be scammed.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "NVIDIA GPU Pricing"

  • 48 months ago
  • 1 point

I just looked on amazon and I don't notice the prices for used being that bad. Most of them are around $170-220. Thats a pretty fair price when the GTX 770 performs better then the 960.

FYI didnt look at 780/TI or really any other card.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "NVIDIA GPU Pricing"

  • 48 months ago
  • 1 point

Because they aren't being manufactured anymore and it's hard to find new, that's why they are expensive. This is the same for AMD and INTEL.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "970 vs 980 Ti for 1080p 60Hz"

  • 48 months ago
  • 1 point

thank you for the compliment!!! :)

Comment reply on Forum Topic "970 vs 980 Ti for 1080p 60Hz"

  • 48 months ago
  • 2 points

I've owned a GTX 770 for 3 years now and still don't see a reason to upgrade except for the fact just because. That's the best answer I can give you because its personal preference. Do you need all the bells and whistles on or do you prefer just more fps and lower settings. Personally I'm on the lower settings and maximize my fps for a smoother gameplay. I tend to think all the smoke and excessive lighting distracts you and causes you to perform worst. So I'd assume a GTX 970 should at least last you 3-4 years at 1080p with decent amount of add on's enabled.

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube